I can assure you I don't hold such a view, Funky. If you can have maps without vehicles that still offer meaningful, strategic choice (in terms of where to go and how to fight) - and I believe we have come across enough specimens delivering just that - you have sufficiently demonstrated that NV maps can be ONS just fine. On average they might not be as diverse in the viable playstyles they offer as other maps that do include vecs (but can still be just as fun to specific crowds as any other or function as palate cleansers), but focusing on appraisal based on those merits already means they've at least passed the more basic/existential, first checkpoint of actually being ONS. You can easily have vecs in your game and not be playing ONS, if vCTF alone is anything to go about. Same goes for other, presumably sufficient ONS criteria ppl have brought up now n' again, like "nodes & cores", "non-indoors", "must have terrain", etc.-FuNkY-MoNk-UK wrote:Pegasus, i understand what you mean about non-vehicle maps not being ONS[...]
While I already addressed the first part specifically in my previous post (we aim for fun to be the result of CEONSS consistently offering worthwhile ONS; aside from that, there's plenty of fun to be had that falls outside our remit, e.g. other gametypes), the latter part boils down to "it's different to most other things, therefore it deserves to be in the roster". Thing is though, maps are defined as much by what they're not as by what they are; it'd be pretty negligent IMO to just focus on the fact that Spambox sets itself apart by not being a big, vehicle-rich, multi-node terrain map while ignoring its more fundamental shortcomings.-FuNkY-MoNk-UK wrote:[...]regardless if [...] any [...] map doesn't fit the criteria of CEONSS, you have to remember that many players find these maps extremely fun. [...] the reason maps like Spambox are loved is they make a change from your typical ONS map.[...]
Not all maps are all things to all people, certainly, and there's many that have their own, unique "character", aesthetically or gameplay-wise that makes folks look forward to them coming up. What's common about all (most?) of those still on CEONSS' roster, however, is that they've earned their place there or that, at least, a convincing case against 'em hasn't yet been made. In any case, some might skew a bit more toward pedestrian action, others might have more of an aerial combat component be dominant, and others still might feature an unusual combo of mechanics that makes even more unconventional playstyles possible. A healthy mix of those is what prevents boring repetition and ensures fun through variety that's also up to an acceptable level of gameplay quality. To ignore this part of the calculation and just stuff the roster full of different items just because they aren't much alike, I think, wouldn't yield the same results in the long term.
There have been a few cases of people announcing their departure from CEONSS and the game in general, I believe, but I can't recall any case where that's been owed specifically to a roster change :/. Perhaps I'm forgetting some such instance that you know of and can point out to me, but in general that certainly hasn't been my impression of what usually drives ppl to stop playing on CEONSS or UT over these past 4 years.-FuNkY-MoNk-UK wrote:[...]we're the ones that are keeping this server alive, if players are requesting certain maps to make a comeback, doesn't that mean that these maps were popular?. I can guarantee CEONSS has lost faithful players due to the removal of certain maps.[...]
To the heart of the issue though, I must stress I vehemently reject the notion of making content management decisions in a constant state of player cost aversion/calculating or resorting to populism as a means of stemming such a presumed player exodus due to some map change. Not just because trying to keep everyone satisfied lest they leave is liable to lead any server admin embracing that approach down numerous, random and contradictory roster changing paths before inevitably proving to be an impossible task, but also because subgroups with opposing playstyle preference agendas always tend to naturally occur in such communities and they can tear them apart if one sits back and allows for that to happen by playing favourites: eventually everyone but the coddled crowd will leave in disgust, new subgroups will form along even more absurd and myopic lines within the remaining sum and that vicious cycle will begin anew. Plenty of servers ultimately were done in by just that mistake and our wish was always to avoid having that same fate by, first, settling on and sticking to a set of content evaluation standards and, later, iterating on those in order to keep refining and improving the roster. Every bit of doubt, constructive criticism and challenge to those standards helps forge something tougher, and ultimately sturdier, like another blow from a blacksmith's hammer on a hot, steel sword banging out imperfections.
I don't see what making it sticky will add to it, but this neighboring thread already offers exactly that opportunity, to say nothing about members' ability to start new ones about similar issues in this section of the msg board.-FuNkY-MoNk-UK wrote:[...]we should have a thread in which players can request which maps they want back or request a new ONS map they have stumbled upon and which map should be removed to take it's place. I know forum members can do this already but i think there should a sticky regarding this topic[...]
While polls haven't had the best of luck in terms of participation up till now on CEONSS, there does exist (unsurprisingly-FuNkY-MoNk-UK wrote:[...]then the administrator should gather all the information posted and make a poll. Then players can vote which map they want removing and which map they would like to take it's place. This would allow players to be more involved in the map picking or removal process.
) an overarching mentality which addresses engaging the community via those and it has to do with presenting people with meaningful but different enough choices that have, however, been previously vetted. If you hit a crossroads, weigh the various options and conclude that only one realistically won't hurt the server down the road, well, there's not much of a point in doing a poll then, is there? On the other hand, if we do come up with a number of similarly good n' interesting choices on some matter that point towards different gameplay results (or vary in some other, significant way) within a specific map or across all maps, as is the case with mutators and ServerActors, our inability to reach a conclusion internally can very much be resolved by appealing to you.I don't know that specifically deciding what map(s) should be removed during each roster change should start being determined by poll results as a standard practice, but trust me when I say that looking for interesting and meaningful ways to engage the community in terms of the content offered and new twists on that has been an issue on our mind for awhile now and you all can definitely help us come up with good polls. Maybe you'd like the voting system changed again, maybe someone's tired of being stuck with the AR as the spawn weapon and wants to suggest a mutator that replaces it with something more unique n' useful everywhere (or one that, say, replaces Scorpions with a better vec because, really, scorps are kind of a joke as is :/), maybe some other mutator should be considered for inclusion, maybe something even more out of left field I can't imagine here. If anyone has something like that swirling in their mind and believe it to be a worthy addition that meets CEONSS' criteria, why not come forth, argue your case and help us improve the server with it?
. Spambox could be played several times in the time you need to post this. This forum is about a game, man 
. If enough of you want something like that and work with Heinz to hash things out n' arrange it, I don't see why it couldn't happen down the line.
